XtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑Nov 9th, '22, 09:53
McCarthy and the GOP really missed a huge opportunity to move on after Jan 6. I assume McCarthy regrets his Mar a Lago visit after Jan 6 that brought Trump back into the fold.
They're between a rock and a hard place. Trump is still very popular, and when he gets snubbed, he's not afraid to go after members of his own party. I see the 2024 campaign being very tumultuous for Republicans. There's already rivalry heating up with DeSantis. Trump called him "Ron DeSanctimonious" at a rally, and said this:
“I would tell you things about him that won’t be very flattering – I know more about him than anybody – other than, perhaps, his wife,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News Digital.
Right - Trump was already putting out word that he has "information" about DeSantis and will release it sometime soon. If Trump announces things could get very interesting...
I'd guess the GOP wants him to wait so DeSantis has time to get ready. If Trump announces soon it is like a kick in the balls to DeSantis and splits the party. Not good for them at all...
DeathSantis versus Trump is going to be like a GOP civil war. Half the GOP is blaming Trump for last night and the other half are flaccid losers like Kevin McCarthy.
"Conservative Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen was quite displeased during a discussion about the midterm elections as results rolled in … “There’s a broader issue, which is, think about this. We had the worst inflation in four decades, the worst collapse in real wages in 40 years, the worst crime wave since the 1990s, the worst border crisis in U.S. History. We have Joe Biden, who is the least popular president since Harry Truman – since presidential polling happened – and there wasn’t a red wave.”
The former speechwriter for George W. Bush did not hold back.
“That is a searing indictment of the Republican Party,” he said. “That is a searing indictment of the message that we have been sending to the voters. They’ve looked at all of that, and looked at Republican alternative and said no thanks. That is–the Republican party needs to do a really deep introspection look in the mirror right now because this is an absolute disaster for the Republican Party and we need to turn back.”"
Maybe stop nominating trolls that act like WWE goons, stop it with the conspiracy theories and actually put forth candidates with clear policy positions that take governing seriously?
deadheadskier wrote: ↑Nov 9th, '22, 12:47
"Conservative Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen was quite displeased during a discussion about the midterm elections as results rolled in … “There’s a broader issue, which is, think about this. We had the worst inflation in four decades, the worst collapse in real wages in 40 years, the worst crime wave since the 1990s, the worst border crisis in U.S. History. We have Joe Biden, who is the least popular president since Harry Truman – since presidential polling happened – and there wasn’t a red wave.”
The former speechwriter for George W. Bush did not hold back.
“That is a searing indictment of the Republican Party,” he said. “That is a searing indictment of the message that we have been sending to the voters. They’ve looked at all of that, and looked at Republican alternative and said no thanks. That is–the Republican party needs to do a really deep introspection look in the mirror right now because this is an absolute disaster for the Republican Party and we need to turn back.”"
Maybe stop nominating trolls that act like WWE goons, stop it with the conspiracy theories and actually put forth candidates with clear policy positions that take governing seriously?
Owning the libz is not a policy position
This.
I am no fan at all of tax and spend Democrats, but we will not get balance back in our government until the crazies are driven out, especially in the Republican party.
You know who else got more votes than DeSantis in 2020 in FL? Joe Biden.
Lots more people voted overall in FL during the Presidential election (~11 mil vs ~7 mil), but DeSantis got a much higher percentage of the vote in 2022 than Donald did in 2020.
Dickc wrote: ↑Nov 9th, '22, 16:32
I am no fan at all of tax and spend Democrats, but we will not get balance back in our government until the crazies are driven out, especially in the Republican party.
I tend to agree - however are the "cut taxes on the uber wealthy and still spend" Republicans any better than the "Tax and Spend" Democrats?
Both parties have crazies that need to be muted but the ones labeled crazies on the left have policy positions that are just too far left for most of us (but at least have a real rational behind them) vs the crazies on the right that have just gone off the deep end with conspiracy theory etc (so I agree that the right has a bigger problem with the crazies).
boston_e wrote: ↑Nov 10th, '22, 08:10
I tend to agree - however are the "cut taxes on the uber wealthy and still spend" Republicans any better than the "Tax and Spend" Democrats?
I think the cut taxes and still spend Republicans are worse. That position is far less fiscally responsible than tax-and-spend. If you look at recent history, I believe debt loads have ballooned under Republican Presidents far more than under Democrat Presidents.
What I want is a pragmatic Republican, the kind that is a true conservative, who will not impose government control over social issues like gay marriage and religion, but will also be wary of spending beyond our means. That means somebody like Baker, Weld, etc.
boston_e wrote: ↑Nov 10th, '22, 08:10
I tend to agree - however are the "cut taxes on the uber wealthy and still spend" Republicans any better than the "Tax and Spend" Democrats?
I think the cut taxes and still spend Republicans are worse. That position is far less fiscally responsible than tax-and-spend. If you look at recent history, I believe debt loads have ballooned under Republican Presidents far more than under Democrat Presidents.
What I want is a pragmatic Republican, the kind that is a true conservative, who will not impose government control over social issues like gay marriage and religion, but will also be wary of spending beyond our means. That means somebody like Baker, Weld, etc.
The Trump tax cut was to the corporate rate. The intent was to attract businesses to do business in the US, as opposed to sending jobs to Ireland and other low tax countries. This is an easy concept to understand, so I am not sure why you libs call it tax cuts for the rich.
boston_e wrote: ↑Nov 10th, '22, 08:10
I tend to agree - however are the "cut taxes on the uber wealthy and still spend" Republicans any better than the "Tax and Spend" Democrats?
I think the cut taxes and still spend Republicans are worse. That position is far less fiscally responsible than tax-and-spend. If you look at recent history, I believe debt loads have ballooned under Republican Presidents far more than under Democrat Presidents.
What I want is a pragmatic Republican, the kind that is a true conservative, who will not impose government control over social issues like gay marriage and religion, but will also be wary of spending beyond our means. That means somebody like Baker, Weld, etc.
The Trump tax cut was to the corporate rate. The intent was to attract businesses to do business in the US, as opposed to sending jobs to Ireland and other low tax countries. This is an easy concept to understand, so I am not sure why you libs call it tax cuts for the rich.
Except the intent didn't work, nor was it really expected to ... I think Ireland's corporate tax rate is something like less than half USA.
I think the 'tax cuts for the rich' piece also comes from the income tax changes, which saw the top rate fall from 39.6% to 37%. It also fleeced a lot of middle class folks by capping the SALT deduction.
XtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑Nov 10th, '22, 09:53
Except the intent didn't work, nor was it really expected to ... I think Ireland's corporate tax rate is something like less than half USA.
Biden's plan to get the world to agree on a global minimum tax is actually much better. It amazes me how gullible people are, swallowing the spoon-fed explanation that lowering the corporate tax rate would keep businesses from going offshore. Ireland's corporate tax rate is still 8.5% lower, even after the cut. Going down to 21% isn't going to do much when your competition is at 12.5% or lower.
XtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑Nov 10th, '22, 09:53
I think the 'tax cuts for the rich' piece also comes from the income tax changes, which saw the top rate fall from 39.6% to 37%. It also fleeced a lot of middle class folks by capping the SALT deduction.
It also lowered several other bracket rates, including lowering the 33% rate to 32%, and the 28% rate to 24%. It did nothing to the lowest bracket, keeping it at 10%. And like you said, many of the gains for the middle class were erased by the SALT cap. That tax plan was the very definition of cutting taxes for the rich.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), passed by President Trump and congressional Republicans, was the biggest reform of the U.S. tax code since 1986. The TCJA lowered income tax rates, especially for higher-income Americans, and it lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Some tax credits and deductions also changed. The standard deduction was nearly doubled (from $6,350 in 2017 to $12,000 in 2018) and the child tax credit was doubled (from $1,000 in 2017 to $2,000 in 2018), but some itemized deductions were limited or eliminated.
How the new tax brackets affected taxpayers
The income tax brackets determine which tax rates you pay, based on your income. Starting in 2018, federal income tax rates ranged from 10% to 37%. There are seven rates within that range, and you only pay a particular rate on the amount of your income that falls within that rate’s income bracket.
President Trump’s tax reform lowered the rates for six of the seven tax brackets (only the 10% bracket remained the same), and expanded the income ranges for each bracket such that more taxpayers would pay a lower top rate.
Estate tax changes help high-income Americans
Estate taxes apply to the value of a person’s estate (everything they owned) when that person passes away. Estates are only subject to estate tax if they’re worth at least a certain value, known as the estate tax exemption. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act doubled the exemption from $5.49 million in 2017 to $11.18 million in 2018. That means only very wealthy estates have to pay estate tax. The estate tax exemption is also set to increase every year; as of 2022, the exemption is $12.06 million.
The number of estate tax returns decreased slightly from 2017 to 2018, but the total value of estate taxes collected by the IRS in 2018 was 3.8% higher than in 2017. It's unclear from currently available data if this increase is due to the TCJA, or if it's simply variation from one year to the next. Future IRS data should provide more clarity.
It’s worth noting that Trump’s tax reform did not change the actual estate tax rates. It only increased the exemption so that fewer estates would have to pay the tax, even though few estates had to pay the tax in the first place.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
So Taxachusetts passed a millionaire tax. 4% additional on anything over 1 million. There is already a 5% rate.
In unrelated news, hundreds of millionaires will be moving away from Taxachusetts.
Back on subject: They are still counting votes. Whatever process Florida has should be a model for all the other states. The delay undermines the integrity of our elections. No wonder people believe that elections are corrupt.
Start by eliminating mail-in ballots (except for oversee military service members).
